The Present Government and Feudalism

Tufail Abbas

The following editorial from a recent issue of ‘Awami
Manshoor’ represents an insightful analysis of the feudal economic bases of
the civilian and military regimes of Pakistan after 1947. Insofar as this
country is mentioned we would argue that far from being terminated the
pronounced remnants of feudalism and other pre-capitalist socio-economic
formations, despite the modifications which ensue from the ‘land reforms’ of
the mid-nineteen-fifties, survive as millstones around the neck of the Indian
economy and act as retarding factors for the development of the productive
forces.

When general Musharraf came to power in October 1999, we had
written in an editorial captioned ‘Pakistan at a New Turning Point’ that the
military rulers that had come into power in 1958, 1969 and 1977 had not
relinquished power of their own. Though general Musharraf has held elections in
the country yet he is the real ruler. When the honoured general had arrived he
had tried in a press conference to equate himself with Kemal Ataturk. He had
also cited Chinese examples to show that he was a champion of the Sino-Pak
friendship. He had spoken against the feudal lords. He had also shown the people
the way to reforms. His military media in charge major general Rashid Qureishi,
too, had talked about the controls of the feudal lords. But what happened? The
prime minister of president Musharraf says that there is no problem of feudalism
in the country and there is no question of reforms in the agrarian relations.

We had said in our October 1999 issue that today’s Pakistan
suffers not only from decadent feudalism but also from the primitive tribal
system. Without destroying these Pakistan can neither progress nor survive. You
cannot run a train by putting a horse in front of it. Such is our situation that
the country’s elected prime minister, who calls himself a champion of
democracy, says that president general is his ‘boss’. When an elected prime
minister accepts the president as his boss then what democracy do we have and
what kind of democracy is it? The situation is worse than even so-called
democracy. Taking account of the past fifty years we emphatically say that not
only these three years of the general’s rule but even the coming fifty years
of the future regimes and the regimes that would come after, cannot bring even a
so-called democracy unless feudal system is uprooted in Pakistan.

After the partition of the sub-continent, the so-called
capitalist democracy could come to the part which constituted India but Pakistan
could not enjoy it. The reason behind that was that the Indian part had
developed industries and the power of feudal lords was smashed there. That is
why after partition they could destroy the feudal system and bourgeois democracy
could be initiated there to some extent. The so-called democracy in India is
usually eulogised but we understand that a real democracy can only come under a
regime of the workers and peasants and that is impossible without an agrarian
revolution. Nehru became the prime minister of India with full powers in his
hands. It is only the prime minister who gets all the powers in his hands in a
bourgeois democracy. On this side, Qaede-Azam was the champion of bourgeois
democracy but he too loved to have the post of a governor general under a feudal
system which has all the powers concentrated at the ‘top’, and he became a
‘boss’. The Supreme Court, the bureaucracy and the army were formed to run
that system. Had he not died so soon it was possible that the Qaede-Azam too
would have tried to get rid of the feudal system like mian Iftkhar-ul-din,
Mumtaz Daultana, Khan Qayoom Khan, Zahid Hussain, M. Masood and Haidar Baksh had
done. But the country continued to be ruled by the feudal lords. The later
regimes, including that of Ayub Khan, Yahya Khan, Zia-ul-haq and now president
Musharraf were founded on the foundations of feudalism. This bunch of feudal
lords who are nourished by imperialism can also fake elections as a showing off
but the power always remains with it and the parliament acts like a cage where
these ‘birds’, which are the product of this decadent system, are allowed to
twitter in their respective languages. If we evaluate our history we find that
feudalism had its roots in the Mughal period. If we see feudalism in the
pre-partition period we find that Shah Abdal Aziz and Sir Sayyed Ahmad Khan
(1746-1824) played an important role in creating a bourgeois mentality among the
Muslims through the capitalist banking system. The British empire had tried to
destroy the old system by giving property rights to ‘revenue collectors’ and
they too became the masters of the landless peasants. Muhammad Ali Johar,
Maulana Azad and Allama Iqbal could not understand the efforts of Sir Sayyed
Ahmad Khan. They could not understand the economic and social power of the
Muslims and all the powers dealing with the economic and social issues went into
the hands of non-Muslims. When Pakistan came into existence this whole region
was under the domination of feudal lords. The religious organisations united
themselves with the feudal forces and further strengthened this system. And now
we have a situation where 67.5 % population is under the control of these forces
which have kept them as hostages. Unless this system is destroyed the ideas
prevailing in Pakistan concerning way of life, society and politics cannot
change. Such is the situation that the so-called reforms which were carried out
during the times of Ayub Khan and Bhutto sahib were stopped by a sharia court
from 23rd March 1990 onwards. Why did such a thing happen
after all? Not just to keep Pakistan under the yoke of feudal lords but
also to maintain the unity of the mullahs with the feudal forces.

This feudal system has made the people of Pakistan pathetic.
We whine like sheep. We have lost the sense of differentiating between the
butcher and the shepherd. We have lost all sensibility, the hallmark of a living
nation, to understand our decisions and to put them into practice. We have come
to the conclusion that whatever is happening will always continue to happen. We
fail to understand that at the time of freedom the big landlords had usurped
state power and the feudal system was bestowed upon us by the British
colonialists. The sons of these very feudal forces dominate the scene in
Pakistan today, especially in Punjab and Sind provinces. The Sirdari system
which was present in 1947 continues to dominate in Baluchistan. Similarly, the
tribal system continued its political domination in the Frontier province. The
rulers of these provinces of Pakistan were neither interested in carrying out
any change nor did they allow it to happen because the system was serving them
and they were fleecing the people white. The reforms carried out by Ayub Khan
and Bhutto were half hearted and half done. Only certain privileged people
benefited from these reforms. Very influential people were behind the failure of
the reforms. They transferred their lands to relatives and children through
spurious methods. Many of them secured their lands by joining Bhutto’s party.
In this way they continued to hold political and personal sway. The national and
regional assemblies were under their influence.

After Jamali’s ravings about general Musharraf and after
calling him his ‘boss’ it becomes clear that feudalism in Pakistan is in
secure hands. Jamali has even told the feudal lords that they should increase
their holdings without any fear and trouble. Now there is no ban over it.
Although South Asia, which includes India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, is free
from feudalism the prime minister of Pakistan is a landlord, the chief minister
of Sind is a landlord, the chief minister of Baluchistan is a landlord, and the
chief minister of Punjab is a landlord. Commenting upon the situation prevailing
in Pakistan an opposition leader, Kichloo Ali, of Baluchistan has said, ‘What
an irony that president Pervez Musharraf had pledged to smash feudalism but his
prime minister is strengthening it.’ – just 7% of the landlords own 40% of
land. In this situation how can a peasant and a poor person raise his head
before these feudal lords? The so-called reforms of Ayub Khan and Bhutto had
allowed the landlords to keep big farms in the name of gardens and hunting
grounds which were later used for cultivation. A minister in Bhutto’s cabinet,
Mustafa Khar, has said that he purchased 150 acres of land at rupees 4000 per
acre and converted that into a farm, and by taking advantage of his ministership
he managed to bring a canal through his land. In this way, the price of his land
was increased enormously. Later, he sold a part of his land at a very high
price.

After Prime Minister Jamali’s statements, a sociologist who
is an expert in his field and is presently an assistant secretary general in the
UNO, has said that Pakistan cannot control poverty until radical reforms are
carried out in the agrarian sector. He is least influenced by the claims
concerning the development of Pakistan and says that feudalism is a barrier to
all kinds of progress. It is a strange thing in Pakistan that here we have
landlords in the government and landlords in the opposition. In this way, these
robbers destroy the people turn by turn. Everywhere the feudal ideas are in
sway. The bureaucracy and the army are full with the people having these ideas
and they are becoming new small landlords and land owners. In this worse kind of
situation the prime minister’s statement concerning reforms in the agrarian
sector will only please the big landowners and especially the big shortcomings
present in the share-cropping system would not be removed. There is much weight
in what Dr. Ishrat Hussain says in this regard. He says that whatever reforms
were effected have failed. The things which are responsible for these failures
include loopholes in the laws, manipulations while implementing these laws, and
also the influences and pressures of the land owners have played their role. On
the one hand, the experts in the socio-economic field have arrived at a common
conclusion and demand that unless feudalism and landlordism is totally done away
with in Pakistan and if the land remains in a few hands, the agriculture economy
will not progress. They put forward the examples of South Korea, Taiwan and
especially that of India in this regard where after the demise of feudalism
production has increased enormously. Such is the situation in our beloved
country where it has stagnated for the last 56 years. The country is in the
control of parasitic feudal forces. The imperialist powers, for their own
interests, want this country to be controlled by these forces.

Then how the conditions will change? Will the feudal lords
and their henchmen change feudalism? How is it possible that the rulers would
behead themselves on their own? A long drawn out struggle is needed for that.
Only the working class can accomplish this job through an unbreakable alliance
with the peasantry and by taking along all other patriotic forces with them.
This can be accomplished only through struggles and struggles alone, leading to
a thoroughgoing revolution. To snatch back rights one does not go in for favours.
Right is secured through struggle.